> I find these comparisons between digital and traditional photography > pointless because you're not comparing like with like. > Compare cameras with similar sensor size - e.g. Nikon's D100 with the > F80 and equivalent lenses working at similar ISO values. > Would you compare a Leica with a Linhof? Different tools different jobs. > Would Cartier-Brresson have swopped his Leica for a Speed Graphic? > Or Ansel Adams his LF for a Leica? The problem is those heavily into digital photography tend to hammer on the film users, beating us up for any number of reasons. Then again, film users do the same thing from time to time. I am not so sure a comparison is all too difficult to make. Both have advantages. For some, digital is best, no arguments allowed. I am not sure you can bring a Leica vs. Linhof element into the discussion. I use both brands and I know the differences. If I am shooting archetecture, the Linhof wins because I love large negatives. I never use digital for serious work because the quality is not there yet. Bob
